Li et. al. v. Flyboard et. al

7/31/2019 Li et. al. v. Flyboard et. al.

1/18

Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: _____________________________________

RAYMOND LI, a Foreign Citizen, andJETLEV, LLC, a Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLYBOARD, INC., a Florida corporation;MARATHON FLORIDA KEYS

KITEBOARDING L.L.C., a Florida Limited

Liability Company; andEMERALD COAST FLYBOARD, A Florida

Corporation

Defendants./

JURY DEMAND

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiffs, RAYMOND LI (hereinafter Li) and JETLEV, LLC., a Delaware corporation

(hereinafter Jetlev) (collectively Plaintiffs), by and through their undersigned counsel,

hereby allege in their Complaint against defendants FLYBOARD, INC., a Florida corporation,

MARATHON FLORIDA KEYS KITEBOARDING L.L.C., a Florida Limited Liability

Company (hereinafter Marathon Kiteboarding), and EMERALD COAST FLYBOARD, a

Florida corporation (hereinafter Emerald Coast) (collectively defendants) as follows:


2/18

Page 2 of 18

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a civil action for patent infringement of United States Patent Nos.7,258,301 (the 301 Patent); 7,735,772 (the 772 Patent); and 7,900,867 (the 867 Patent)

(collectively, the Patents-In-Suit) arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.

1 et seq.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the Patent Laws of the United

States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq.

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants pursuant to Floridaslong-arm statute F.S. 48.193 (1)(b), (f)(1)-(2) in that the defendants are each (a)operating,conducting, engaging or carrying on a business in the State of Florida; (b) committing tortious

acts within the State of Florida; and (c) engaging in substantial and not isolated activity within

the State of Florida.

4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b).5. Joinder of the defendants is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C.

299 as the relief sought against each defendant arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or

series of transactions or occurrences relating to the using, importing into the United States,

offering for sale, and/or selling of the same accused product or process, and matters of law and

fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

THE PARTIES

6. Raymond Li is a Canadian citizen.


3/18

Page 3 of 18

7. Jetlev is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1111 OldGriffin Road, Dania Beach, FL 33004.

8. Flyboard, Inc. is a Florida corporation having a principal place of business at 202S Hwy 441, Lady Lake, FL 32162.

9. Marathon Kiteboarding is a Florida limited liability company having a principalplace of business at 4980 Ocean Terrace, Marathon, FL 33050.

10. Upon information and belief, Emerald Coast is a Florida corporation having aprincipal place of business at 8275 East Bay Blvd., Navarre, FL 32566.

THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT

11. On August 21, 2007, U.S. Patent No. 7,258,301, entitled Personal PropulsionDevice, was duly and lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office

(USPTO). A true and correct copy of the 301 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

12. On June 15, 2010, U.S. Patent No. 7,735,772 entitled Personal PropulsionDevice, was duly and lawfully issued by the USPTO. A true and correct copy of the 772 Patent

is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

13. On March 8, 2011, U.S. Patent No. 7,900,867 entitled Personal PropulsionDevice, was duly and lawfully issued by the USPTO. A true and correct copy of the 867 Patent

is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

14. Raymond Li is the sole inventor and owner of the Patents-In-Suit.15. Jetlev is the exclusive licensee of the Patents-In-Suit.16. The Patents-In-Suit are in full force and effect as of the date of this Complaint and

at all times relevant to the allegations herein.


4/18

Page 4 of 18

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

17. Years ago, Raymond Li conceived of and began developing his concept for awater-powered jetpack. In the mid-2000s, Mr. Li began prototyping and testing his designs, and

also filed a series of patent applications to protect his novel water-powered personal propulsion

device concepts.

18. In August 2008, a fully operational water-powered jetpack prototype wascompleted and a series of successful flights followed. A few months later, various clips from

these test flights made their way online to a number of video sharing websites. The excitement

and fervor resulting from these videos generated tens of millions of views worldwide.

19. Following the excitement over this never-before-seen product, Jetlev wasestablished in Dania Beach, Florida, where Jetlev currently manufactures its water-powered

personal propulsion devices (dubbed the Jetlev R200) for sale to the public. The Jetlev R200

has garnered worldwide attention and publicity due to its unique, pioneering water-powered

personal flight experience.

Flyboard, Inc.

20. Flyboard, Inc. is in the business of importing, using, selling, and offering to sellwater-powered personal propulsion devices called The Flyboard or the Zapata Racing

Flyboard.

21. Flyboard, Inc. claims to be the exclusive distributor of The Flyboard for theUnites States of America, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Flyboard,

Inc. also identifies itself as a dealer for The Flyboard for Southern Florida, Central Florida,

Northeast Florida, and the Eastern Panhandle. Flyboard, Inc. sells and offers to sell The

Flyboard throughout the United States and in this District.


5/18

Page 5 of 18

22. Flyboard, Inc. holds training classes for customers and potential customers on theoperation and use of The Flyboard, during which Flyboard, Inc. personnel demonstrate and

teach the use of The Flyboard.

23. On March 22, 2012, undersigned counsel for Jetlev and Mr. Li sent a cease anddesist letter to Flyboard, Inc. demanding that FlyBoard, Inc. cease all demonstration, use, sale,

offers for sale, manufacturing, importation, and distribution of the infringing Zapata Racing

Flyboard in the United States. Flyboard, Inc. has willfully continued to import, use, offer for sale

and sell the infringing Flyboard since March 22, 2012.

24. Upon information and belief, Flyboard, Inc. has placed infringing products intothe stream of commerce with the knowledge and/or understanding that such products are sold to

and used by customers in this District. In addition, Flyboard, Inc. knowingly induced, and

continues to knowingly induce, infringement within this State and within this District by

contracting with others to market, use and sell infringing products with the knowledge and intent

to facilitate infringing sales and use of the products by others within this District and by creating

and/or disseminating product information and other instruction materials for the infringing

products with like mind and intent.

Marathon Kiteboarding

25. Marathon Kiteboarding is in the business of importing, using, selling, and offeringto sell The Flyboard or the Zapata Racing Flyboard.

26. Marathon Kiteboarding holds training classes for customers and potentialcustomers on the operation and use of The Flyboard, during which Marathon Kiteboarding

personnel demonstrate and teach the use of The Flyboard.


6/18

Page 6 of 18

27. Upon information and belief, Marathon Kiteboarding has placed infringingproducts into the stream of commerce with the knowledge and/or understanding that such

products are sold to and used by customers in this District. In addition, Marathon Kiteboarding

knowingly induced, and continues to knowingly induce, infringement within this State and

within this District by contracting with others to market, use and sell infringing products with the

knowledge and intent to facilitate infringing sales and use of the products by others within this

District and by creating and/or disseminating product information and other instruction materials

for the infringing products with like mind and intent.

Emerald Coast

28. Emerald Coast is in the business of importing, using, selling, and offering to sellThe Flyboard or the Zapata Racing Flyboard.

29. Emerald Coast holds training classes for customers and potential customers on theoperation and use of The Flyboard, during which Emerald Coast personnel demonstrate and

teach the use of The Flyboard.

30. Upon information and belief, Emerald Coast has placed infringing products intothe stream of commerce with the knowledge and/or understanding that such products are sold to

and used by customers in this District. In addition, Emerald Coast knowingly induced, and

continues to knowingly induce, infringement within this State and within this District by

contracting with others to market, use and sell infringing products with the knowledge and intent

to facilitate infringing sales and use of the products by others within this District and by creating

and/or disseminating product information and other instruction materials for the infringing

products with like mind and intent.


7/18

Page 7 of 18

COUNT I

(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,258,301)

31. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-30 from above as though fullyset forth herein.

32. Flyboard, Inc. has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe, literallyand/or under the doctrine of equivalent, one or more claims of the 301 Patent by importing,

making, using, offering to sell and/or selling Flyboard personal propulsion devices and

associated components in the United States without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271.

33. Flyboard, Inc. also has and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims ofthe 301 Patent by inducing others to infringe and/or contributing to the infringement of others,

including end users of its infringing Flyboard personal propulsion devices. Specifically,

Flyboard, Inc. has actively induced, and continues to induce, the infringement of one or more

claims of the 301 Patent at least by actively inducing the infringing use of Flyboard personal

propulsion devices by Flyboard, Inc.s customers in the United States. Flyboard, Inc. knew or

should have known that its conduct would induce others to use its Flyboard personal

propulsion devices in a manner that infringes the 301 Patent. Flyboard, Inc. has also

contributorily infringed and continues to contributorily infringe the 301 Patent by importing into

the United States, using, selling and/or offering to sell within the United States infringing

products that constitute a material part of the claimed inventions that are not staple articles of

commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.

34. Plaintiffs provided written notice to FlyBoard, Inc. of its infringement of the 301Patent on March 22, 2012.

35. FlyBoard, Inc.s infringement of the 301 Patent has been willful and deliberate.


8/18

Page 8 of 18

36. Marathon Kiteboarding has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe,literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalent, one or more claims of the 301 Patent by

importing, making, using, offering to sell and/or selling Flyboard personal propulsion devices

and associated components in the United States without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C.

271.

37. Marathon Kiteboarding also has and continues to indirectly infringe one or moreclaims of the 301 Patent by inducing others to infringe and/or contributing to the infringement

of others, including end users of its infringing Flyboard personal propulsion devices.

Specifically, Marathon Kiteboarding has actively induced, and continues to induce, the

infringement of one or more claims of the 301 Patent at least by actively inducing the infringing

use of Flyboard personal propulsion devices by Marathon Kiteboardings customers in the

United States. Marathon Kiteboarding knew or should have known that its conduct would induce

others to use its Flyboard personal propulsion devices in a manner that infringes the 301

Patent. Marathon Kiteboarding has also contributorily infringed and continues to contributorily

infringe the 301 Patent by importing into the United States, using, selling and/or offering to sell

within the United States infringing products that constitute a material part of the claimed

inventions that are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.

38. Marathon Kiteboardings infringement of the 301 Patent has been willful anddeliberate.

39. Emerald Coast has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe, literallyand/or under the doctrine of equivalent, one or more claims of the 301 Patent by importing,




9/18

Page 9 of 18

40. Emerald Coast also has and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims ofthe 301 Patent by inducing others to infringe and/or contributing to the infringement of others,


Emerald Coast has actively induced, and continues to induce, the infringement of one or more


propulsion devices by Emerald Coasts customers in the United States. Emerald Coast knew or


propulsion devices in a manner that infringes the 301 Patent. Emerald Coast has also





41. Emerald Coasts infringement of the 301 Patent has been willful and deliberate.42. Defendants infringement of the 301 Patent will continue unless enjoined by this

Court.

43. As a direct and proximate result of defendants infringement of the 301 Patent,Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and damages in an amount

not yet determined for which Plaintiffs are entitled to relief.

COUNT II





10/18

Page 10 of 18















48. FlyBoard, Inc.s infringement of the 772 Patent has been willful and deliberate.49. Marathon Kiteboarding has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe,

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalent, one or more claims of the 772 Patent by



271.


11/18

Page 11 of 18





















12/18

Page 12 of 18









Court.



COUNT III









13/18

Page 13 of 18











61. FlyBoard, Inc.s infringement of the 867 Patent has been willful and deliberate.62. Marathon Kiteboarding has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe,

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalent, one or more claims of the 867 Patent by



271.







14/18

Page 14 of 18





















15/18

Page 15 of 18




Court.



PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court:

A. Enter a judgment that defendants have infringed, induced infringement andcontributed to the infringement of the 301 Patent.

B. Enter a judgment that defendants have infringed, induced infringement andcontributed to the infringement of the 772 Patent.

C. Enter a judgment that defendants have infringed, induced infringement andcontributed to the infringement of the 867 Patent.

D. Order defendants to pay damages to adequately compensate Plaintiffs fordefendants patent infringement, including an award of defendants profits from its infringement

of the Patents-In-Suit as well as Plaintiffs lost profits, together with pre- and post-judgment

interest;

E. Enter a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283, restraining andenjoining defendants and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,

customers, licensors, suppliers and those in concert or participation with them from any further


16/18

Page 16 of 18

sales, offers for sale, importation or use of infringing products and services and any other

infringement of the Patents-In-Suit, whether direct or indirect;

F. Find that defendants patent infringement was willful and malicious and awardtreble damages to Plaintiffs under 35 U.S.C. 284;

G. Find this to be an exceptional case of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 285and award reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs in prosecuting

this action; and

H. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs request trial by a jury for all claims and issues so triable.

Dated: July 02, 2012 Respectfully Submitted,

s/ Nicholas R. Lewis

Nicholas R. Lewis, [email protected]

Florida Bar No. 16146Garrett Ari Barten, Esq.

[email protected]

Florida Bar No. 55371

CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A.200 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2040

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

(954) 828-1488 (Telephone)(954) 828-9122 (Facsimile)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

388086


17/18


18/18

Documents

Li et. al. v. Flyboard et. al